Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Texas Tribune this morning published a story about a research project your correspondent is spearheading on behalf of my employers at the Innocence Project of Texas to analyze new eyewitness identification policies which Texas law enforcement agencies were supposed to adopt by September 1 of this year. The story by Brandi Grissom opened:

The Innocence Project of Texas is preparing to grade about 1,200 law enforcement departments statewide on their compliance with a law that requires police agencies to adopt eyewitness identification policies.

“Unless
somebody is really grading their papers, nobody knows whether the law
is really being implemented,” said Scott Henson, a policy consultant for
the Innocence Project.

Last year, Texas legislators approved a measure
that required police agencies to adopt policies meant to prevent faulty
eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Under the law, departments
were required to adopt a written policy by Sept. 1. Last week, the
Innocence Project sent the departments letters requesting copies of
their lineup policies.

Faulty eyewitness identifications are the leading cause
of wrongful convictions, according to the New York-based Innocence
Project. In 297 DNA exonerations across the nation, the Innocence
Project reported, mistaken identifications contributed to 75 percent of
the wrongful convictions.

“There’s almost nothing more powerful in a courtroom than eyewitness testimony,” Henson said.

The story quoted Assistant Chief Bryan Carlisle of the Shenandoah Police Department,
"who has been traveling the state conducting training for the Texas Police Chiefs Association," declaring that “We really thought as a profession we had been
doing right,” but “Now, science has caught up and said, ‘Hey,
there really is a better way to do this.’” He hoped, as do I, that "what they’ll find is that most agencies are in compliance with the law."

As background, regular readers may recall that:

Legislators instructed the Law Enforcement Management Institute of
Texas at Sam Houston State University to develop a model policy on
eyewitness identification that departments could use as a template.

That policy sets
out guidelines for conducting lineups in a way that does not suggest to
witnesses whom they should select. Those guidelines are the criteria
against which the Innocence Project of Texas plans to judge the policies
that departments have adopted, Henson said.

Among other things,
the criteria include ensuring that the person presenting the photos does
not know who the suspect is, asking witnesses how confident they are
that the person they identified is the same one they saw at the crime
scene, giving witnesses instructions that include letting them know the
perpetrator may not be among the choices presented, showing potential
suspects sequentially instead of simultaneously, and choosing subjects
for the lineup who have similar characteristics to one another and to
the suspect described.

Texas' new law allows agencies to diverge substantially from the "model policy" when crafting their own local standards. So it's possible for departments to comply with the law but still avoid adopting best practices. The IPOT analysis will grade departmental policies based on compliance with the LEMIT model policy, weighting its components based on the most critical elements identified in the research on eyewitness identification practices. Anecdotally, many departments have welcomed LEMIT's legislatively mandated advice, while others have been more resistant. Until the policies come in and are analyzed, though, there's no way to know which how many agencies adopted key elements from the model policy and how many failed to do so.

IPOT's open records requests apparently began to hit yesterday. As of this morning, we'd already received policies from 77 departments at a dedicated email address set up for the project.

Notably, though the best practices promoted in the model policy will significantly reduce eyewitness errors, but they will not eliminate them. That's because eyewitnesses, especially when they did not know the perpetrator before the crime event, tend to make relative judgments, and one lineup member will always look more like the perpetrator than the others, even when the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup. The most comprehensive field study on the topic found that, even using best practices including sequential presentation, 12.2% of eyewitnesses chose a filler instead of the suspect. (And of course, it's impossible to say how many suspects chosen were really the wrong person.) So requiring new policies won't be a panacea, but it's an important first step toward reducing eyewitness errors and, by extension, the rate of false convictions based on them.

8 comments:

Anonymous
said...

When have police ever followed the law? Just like Probable Cause, cops will ignore this and find a way to have witnesses implicate those who they want to pin the crime on. After all, the Blue Wall Of Silence will tell no tales...

Actually, from past experience, I predict the overwhelming majority of agencies will follow the law and pass some sort of policy. A larger number, though, will likely adopt policies that do not comport with the LEMIT model.

For those who don't adopt best practices laid out by LEMIT, the Court of Criminal Appeals has said that judges abuse their discretion if they don't allow (and in indigent cases, make the county pay for) expert witnesses to critique faulty eyeID procedures. It's not everything I might want, but it's not nothing and I do think it will make a difference.

Even if agencies do adopt some type of policy it won't mean that their investigators will adhere to it. And you know this, Scott. Since it won't be a reversible error, detectives will ignore the rules and do as they please. Until law enforcement officers are held personally responsible and lose the legislated protection they currently have, nothing, not one thing, will change. Cops laugh at this sort of unenforceable tripe. It only means they'll need to be more creative in securing eyewitness identification. Those gut hunches detectives seem to get when there's pressure to solve a case will always be there, and detectives will always find a way to implicate the innocent.

The studies have been done and the facts on this issue have been in for years now. Before that we knew it was true but, there was no data to prove it. Why was coming to the conclusion that lie detector results should not be admitted as evidence so easy to put in place and ID identification so hard to even call into question.

It’s sad but true. Law enforcement will not follow any guideline unless someone audits it. If the history of law enforce has taught us anything, it has taught us we must monitor our police and prosecutors closely in order to safe guard our freedoms.

I am encouraged by this post hopefully it will begin to bring accountability and transparency to our justice system! I am so thankful for the inception of the Innocence Project, they have saved so many lives already!

Hey Grits, the redneck hayseeds that I confronted on Sept. 2, 2012 said that they have no intentions of complying and doing so would require the Feds to come and make 'em.

After showing them my ten page Houston Police Department Incident Report (F-Story), all of them offered a version of: *they can't do that, what the hell, *these detectives must have had a hard on for you son, *did you represent yourself, *this was wrong then and wouldn't be allowed today. Three offered to contact the TBP&P on my behalf.

Since nothing can be done on my behalf, I do what I do on behalf of others in hopes it doesn't happen again and to gain inclusion of those left out of the seeking of justice due to the type of evidence holding the key. I thank you for doing what you do as for it will affect others for generations to come.

*Those thinking that there is no reason to comply with judicial reforms can’t be helped here in the GFB comment section or anywhere for that matter. Those wishing to see just what the Houston Police Department got away with and what the TBP&P denied twice in my pursuit of a Full Pardon - for innocence are asked to check out the following.

Page 2.007 shows crime victim telling a detective he's Positive that #3. held a .22 or .25 black revolver with a two inch barrel.

Afterwards a second detective asked if he could recognize any others and he said, no. To try to rule out #1. he asked if he could rule him out? The crime victim looked at #1 and stated that he remembers he was in on it. He was concentrating on #3 because he had the gun and stated it was all coming back to him. Asked how sure he was, he said Almost Positive.

The second detective called DAs Intake and talked to ADA. Sgt. told him about line up and the DA stated he would take charges.

Page 2.009 shows second detective talked with victim again and about the case. In the report the suspects had Black Hair. The complainant stated the #1 suspect had Brown Hair, Straight, and Medium Long. The #2 suspect had had Blond Wavy Hair. He stated that there was a witness that saw the suspects and could ID them (report list Witnesses as NONE).

Case Cleared: Suspects Arrested And Charged.

So as you can see, I was then and still remain a victim of the system, a system that allowed white to be black, straight to be wavy, wavy to be straight and strangely allowed detectives to ignore the fact they had the wrong people and three Supervisors to review & signed off on the report. Sadly the TBP&P chose to Cover –Up the actions of HPD Robbery Detectives & ADA via: Denying Full Pardon for innocence considerations.

For the cherry on top, ADA Mr. Casey J. O'Brien was allowed to bring in a mystery gun, a black .38revolver with a 5 or 6 inch barrel to substitute for the alleged .22 or .25 with a two inch barrel and mark it as a State’s Exhibit.

The crime victim took the stand pointed and said that's him but his hair is different. The attorney my family hired, tricked me into plea bargaining at lunch recess telling me, GUILTY or NOT you are going to prison just for being on probation at time of arrest. Take the plea and get on with your life.

I could've chosen revenge over assisting in the reforming of a fixed system (LINE-UPS like above & Plea Bargain abuses)and it would've been bad for everyone.

Thanks for reading about just one of the countless humans that have been wronged and denied post conviction relief despite being in possession of ample proof of corruption that encompassed an entire system.

Hi – It’s good to read such interesting stuff on the Internet as I have been able to discover here. I agree with much of what is written here and I’ll be coming back to this website again. Thanks again for posting such great reading material!!

GfB Writer Bios

Subscribe by email

Support Grits via Donation

Donate to Grits via PayPal. Grits is a hobby, but donations help cover newspaper subscriptions, periodic travel, open records fees, etc.. Donate if you can! When I have resources, the blog can do more stuff!

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."